The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 277
xxiv, 696 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
m
tions, was to produce uniform!ty, But it was equal-
ly important that there should be uniformity in other
respects as well as in respect to the qualifications of
members. It was equally important that there
should be uniformity in respect to the qualification
of "voters; whether they should be citizens or aliens,
whites or blacks; whether they should possess prop-
erty, and so on; whether the government should
be an aristocracy or a democracy. Were not these
considerations of equal importance in regard to uni-
formity as this one little item in relation to districts?
But there was another point. In a majority of the
States, a mere plurality, less than a majority of the
whole number of voters, could elect members to Con-
gress; and a large portion of the members of that
House came there, consequently, elected by a minor-
ity of the State, while the New England States re-
quired a majority of the whole number. • Was not
uniformity in this respect equally essential. Was
it not an important consideration whether members
should come to that House elected by a majority or
by a minority of the votes of their State? But un-
der the constitution the qualification of voters was to
be fixed by the States. Congress had no power
over the subject. So it would be seen that by
this high-handed nullification Congress \vas
stripping the States at once of a right which
was guarantied to them by the constitution. He
had thought that gentlemen who kept talking so
much about nullification, had determined nullifica-
tion to be resistance on the part of those who had
no right to resist a law which was authorized by the
constitution. He never supposed nullification to be
the declaring a law void by a tribunal which
was expressly empowered to declare it void.
Would gentlemen charge the Supreme Court
with nullification, in case they decided that a
law of Congress was invalid? Now apply this
principle to the States. The constitution pro-
vided that that House should be the judge of the
qualification and return of its members. The House
was made the constitutional tribunal, the only tri-
bunal authorized to decide upon the constitutionality
of the law. The Supreme Court had no jurisdic-
tion over the subject; the State courts had none;
and if the doctrine should prevail, that the House
had not this power, Congress might go on asserting
power after power, and ultimately revolutionise the
whole system of government, and there would be
no power on earth authorized to declare their acts
void, and to bring the government back to its origi-
nal principles. He wanted to test this doctrine a
little further. It was said this House could not de-
clare an act void which had been made by the law-
making power. Well, his friend before him had
been elected under a law passed by the law-making
power. The laws of New Hampshire, Georgia,
Mississippi, and Missouri, relating to elections,
had been passed by a law-making power; and
he asked by what authority could Congress de-
clare the law of four sovereign States void, and an-
ninilate their representation? Their election had been
held in pursuance of their own law. If the gentle-
man's own doctrine were true, then they were nullifi-
ers.
But to return to the question, as to what the fra-
nievs of tile constitution actually meant when they
inserted that clause in the constitution. The debates
of the convention clearly showed that they who
formed the constitution, and they who interpreted it
and ratified it, meant that the power of Congrese
odBUie elections should be exercised only in the
evWW of the States refusing to legislate upon
the subject, or legislating in such a man-
ner as to submit the rights of the people to
a fair representation. There could be no ques-
tion or dispute upon this point. The report of the
majority of the committee admitted that a majority
of all the States of the Union protested against the
exercise of this power, except upon the happening
of the contingency to which he had referred. As to
the intention of the framers of the constitution upon
this point, there could be 110 doubt.
But passing from this, he desired for a moment
to call the attention of the House to the question
whether the Congress of the United States possessed
the power to make districts themselveg or not. He had
omitted in the report to express an opinion upon this
subject, for the reason that it was not necessary to
a decision of the question before the House, and
would bring up a false issue. And it was said by
gentlemen in debate, that, by omitting that point, the
committee must be presumed to have admitted it.
He was driven, therefore, to the examination of a
question, which at first he thought unnecessary to
be touched. He, for one, affirmed that Congress
had no power to district the States; and why?
They were told the phrase "make or alter
the regulations of the States" included every
thing. He denied this position. It did not
include the qualifications' of voters. It did not
include; the qualification of voters in respect to
residence. Congress had 110 power over anything
which related to the qualification of voters for mem-
bers of the federal legislature. It had been hereto-
fore decided by the House, in contested cases, that
residence was a_ material qualification of members of
Congress; and inasmuch as the constitution itself
had prescribed the qualification of members, a law
declaring that members should reside in a particulaf
county was void, because it prescribed a material
qualification. Apply this to voters. If it were a
necessary qualification for members, it was so for
voters; and if the law-making power had no authori-
ty to fix the residence and other qualifications of
members of Congress, they had no authority to pre-
scribe residence as a qualification for voters. This
power was expressly reserved to the States. Hence
it appeared that Congress had no power to declare
that a man reside in one county should not vote
for a member reflKig in another county.
It affects the qualifications of voters; and the States
may do it, though Congress cannot—for the consti-
tution says that it shall not. That was the reason
why he said that the word "manner" did not include
everything. But one word as to the power of Con-
gress to district the States. He wanted to test it.
If Congress had that power, it had also the power
to establish the general-ticket system. If (said Mr.
D.) you have the power to order the States to dis-
trict themselves, you have the power to order them
to abolish the district system, and establish the gen-
eral-ticket system. Were gentleman prepared to ar-
rogate to Congress that power? I deny (said Mr.
D.) that Congress has the power to compel my State
to abolish the district system, and establish the gen-
eral-ticket, or any other system; that is one of our
reserved rights; and if you pass such an act, we will
pass such a resolution as we have already done, de-
claring that your law is unconstitutional and void.
One gentleman said last night that Congress could
borrow the power from the States to carry out its legis-
lation; that is, that Congress could, in the first place,
exercise and exhaust all its own powers, and then bor-
row power from the States in the same manner, he
supposed, as some of the States had borrowed mon-
ey from England, after spending all their own. If
this government could, after exhausting its own
powers, command and exercise those of the States,
where would be the State governments? The broad
dpctrine had been advanced, that this government
might exercise a controlling power over the States,'
ana prescribe rules to govern their legislation. If
this was true, where was the sovereignty of the
States, and where were their reserved rights? Mr.
D. then went into a comparison between the two re-
ports of the majority and minority of the committee.
There were some points, he said, in which the two
reports agreed, and some in which they disagreed.
They agreed that the power to prescribe the times,
places, and manner of holding the elections, was
vested primarily in the States, and ultimately in Con-
gress. They agreed, further, that if Congress as-
sumed a portion of the power, or all the power—if it
only exercised a portion of it, the States still posses-
sed the remainder: that far the reports agreed. But
here, lest he should forget it, he wished to notice an
on it' No; the power to make or alter regulations did
not imply the right to destroy State legislation. He
denied the doctrine of the minority report, that Con-
gress might repeal all State legislation, without other
legislation to supply the legislation repealed. The
moment a State government was formed, it possessed
the right of representation; and it could not be de-
prived of it. It was not in the power of any tribu-
nal on earth to deprive New Hampshire or any
other State of its representation. It was an inhe-
rent right, and existed so long as the government
exists. The injunction was imperative that the
States shall prescribe the times, places, and manner
of holding the elections. Congress may alter, but it
cannot supersede these regulations till it supplies
others in their places, so as to leave the right of
representation perfect. A contrary doctrine would
destroy the Umon. It was worse than the wildest
opponent of nullification ever represented that doc-
trine to be. But, to return to the point from which
he had digressed: the two reports agreed that Con-
gress might exercise a part of this power, and leave
the balance to the States; and gentlemen said " that
that was acknowledging the whole question. ' How,
he contended that the conclusion that they ' dre'w
from this admission was a non sequitur. It Was
jumping at a conclusion without giving the reasons
by,whichit was reached; and he would show how.
Congress may prescribe the times at which the elec-
tions shall take place; and the States beginning
where Congress left off, the legislation of the two
did not cover the same ground, and did not, there-
fore, conflict with each other. - .
Again: suppose that under the term "manner,"
including the various- branches of that part of the
subject, Congress should see fit to regulate the dis-
tricting of the States; and suppose it had the power
to district: if Congress assumed that power, its If
gialation must cover the whole ground, and leave
nothing for the States to do on that subject.' The
principle wag well settled, that two independent
governments could not exercise the same portion of
the same power without conflict. It was impossi-
ble; it involved an absurdity, and could not be done.
He would here answer the question put to him by
the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Summers.] He
alluded to thegentleman's celebrated landlord and
tenant case. The gentleman asked him for an an-
swer, and he promised to give it to him. The ease
supposed by the gentlemaTi was: a man owns a
house with three rooms in it, and rents it, with the
condition that he may re-enter and take possession
of one room at his pleasure. The landlord enters,
and takes possession of one room; but the tenant oli-
jects, and says that he will not pay the rent of the
other rooms, and that the landlord must take all of
the rooms or none. That was the case supposed;
and the gentleman asked what was the law of Illi-
nois on the subject. The best way of aOSwerirg
the gentleman's question was to vary the supposi-
tion, and put a question to him. Suppose, the
landlord, instead of taking one room, comes in
and says I will take an undivided portion
of one room, and you (the tenant) shall stay in and
occupy that room jointly with me. Th£ tenant ob-
jects; and says that the taking of half a room is not
provided for in the lease, and the landlord must take
a whole room, or none at all. Now, he would ask
the gentleman from Virginia what the law would be
in Virginia, in the neighborhood of the Kanhawa
salt works, in regard to that matter. He would
now show how this supposed case applied to the
question before the House. The term "manner" in-
cluded many rooms, one of which was the district
system. The landlord (i. e. the government) said, I
want to take a portion of that room, and spread my
district system over the floor of it; and I want the
States to stay in that room, and spread their system
out, so that the two will cover the floor in glorious
confusion. Ah! (say the States) we won't agree to
it. You may take the room, if you please, and fill
it up with your district system, or you may
leave it to us. We won't be joint tenants with you.
Large families will quarrel; and we won't have our
system and yours mixed up in glorious confusion.
His friends near him (Mr. X>. said) suggested that
this was like what was called bundling in New Jer-
sey. We don't (said he) want to have any bundling
with the States.
He would now proceed to another part of the
subject. Because he had admitted that Congress
might legislate in part on this subject, gentlemen
said that he had conceded the whole ground. He
had answered that matter. Again: he contended
that, to the extent Congress assumed to act, it must
act completely, so as not to require any additional
legislation from the States on the subject.
We have been'told (said he) that this districting
act is in force in twenty-two States of the Union.
He denied it, but admitted it for the sake of argu-
ment. But, it was not in force in the other fo in-
states. It was not in force in New Hampshire,
Georgia, Mississippi, or Missouri. And why: If
the district system was established by the act, it
would exist in these four States, as well as in the
rest. It existed in the twenty-two States, not be-
cause of this law, but because the States, by their
own legislation, had established it. This act, there-
fore, had not established it anywhere. If it has es-
tablished it anywhere, it has established it every-
where.
One word about the militia law. Gentlemen
said that this was a parallel case. He contended
that it was not. The clause in relation to elections
provided that the States shall prescribe the times,
places, and manner of holding elections; but that
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2367/m1/301/: accessed April 27, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.